|
Cannabis Campaigners' Guide News Database result:
|
|
UK: OPED: Why We Said Said No To Legalisation
ccguide Friday 24 May 2002 Pubdate: Wed, 22 May 2002 Source: Guardian, The (UK) Copyright: 2002 Guardian Newspapers Limited Contact: Website: http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardian/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/175 Author: Chris Mullin Note: . Chris Mullin is chairman of the home affairs select committee. The report of the committee's inquiry is published today and available from HMSO and on the committee's website www.parliament.uk. Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/hr.htm (Harm Reduction) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/decrim.htm (Decrim/Legalization) WHY WE SAID SAID NO TO LEGALISATION ...And Yes To A Rational Drugs Policy Based On Harm Reduction Drugs policy is an area where most British politicians fear to tread. For although it is widely recognised that existing efforts to combat illegal drugs have failed, there is an absolute difference of opinion among experts of every relevant profession - doctors, police and social workers - as to what should be done. Opinions, all advanced with equal passion, range from the argument that prohibition has failed and should therefore be abandoned, to the argument that all drugs are harmful and existing bans should be tightened. The same division of opinion is reflected internationally. Countries such as Sweden maintain a hard line against all forms of drug abuse, while Switzerland and the Netherlands are moving cautiously away from law enforcement towards harm reduction. All three countries maintain that their policies are successful. Witnesses to the select committee I chaired who argued that all or most illegal drugs should be legalised included a former chief constable, a former ambassador to Colombia and a parent who had lost his son to heroin. Legalisation, it was suggested, would enable supply to be taken out of the hands of criminals and regulated, thereby reducing deaths from overdose and adulteration. It would also reduce the level of crime committed by addicts seeking to fund their habit. We acknowledge that these are attractive arguments. The criminal market may well be diminished (though not eliminated); likewise drug-related crime. Harm may well be reduced, though this might be offset by an increase in the number of abusers. It is inevitable, too, that however tightly the sale of drugs was regulated, there would be a significant leakage to underage abusers. We agreed, too, with those who say that legalisation would send the wrong message to the majority of young people who do not take drugs of any sort, partly because they are illegal. Finally, we noted that - however forceful the arguments - no other country has yet been persuaded to legalise. Nor can we foresee a day when it would be possible to legalise a drug like crack cocaine, which often results in violent behaviour. So we came down unanimously against legalisation. That said, however, attempts to combat illegal drugs by means of law enforcement have proved so manifestly unsuccessful that it is difficult to argue for the status quo. So far as heroin users are concerned, law enforcement simply marginalises further people who need help. Nor does it make any sense to pretend that all illegal drugs are equally harmful. They are not. Once these simple truths are grasped, certain conclusions follow. First, harm reduction rather than retribution needs to be the primary focus of policy towards users. Second, law enforcement should concentrate overwhelmingly on the criminal network responsible for manufacturing and importing the most harmful drugs - notably heroin and cocaine. Third, treatment should focus on reducing the harm caused by the 250,000 or so problematic users (mainly of heroin) who are damaging not only their own lives, but those of their families and their communities. Fourth, to stand any chance of being effective, education must be honest, targeted and preferably delivered by someone with street-cred - recovered addicts for example. In line with these principles, the committee has proposed that the Misuse of Drugs Act be amended to downgrade both cannabis and ecstasy. We have also recommended the creation of a new offence of "supply for gain" which would enable the courts to distinguish between dealers and groups of friends who share drugs on a not-for-profit basis. To reduce the harm caused by heroin use we have recommended a network of safe injecting rooms where chaotic users can inject safely, where needles can be disposed of and where those interested can get access to help. We have also recommended a series of controlled experiments, along the lines of those in the Netherlands and Switzerland, in which heroin can be made available on prescription to chaotic users in order to stabilise their lives and, where possible, steer them towards recovery. Finally, we have urged the government to expand investment in residential and non-residential treatment. I believe - and so do 10 of the 11 members of my committee - that a harm reduction approach is both rational and defensible. What's more, I suspect that this view will not be all that controversial. It only remains to be seen whether the government will rise to the occasion. - --- MAP posted-by: Beth
After you have finished reading this article you can click here to go back.
|
This page was created by the Cannabis Campaigners' Guide.
Feel free to link to this page!